National Security (State Threats) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman almost entirely. The Executive have a responsibility to protect and maintain this country’s national security, and we have to move when we see that hostile actors are employing new methods to put our people and interests at risk. We have seen an increase in hostile activity from those who are not directly related to foreign powers, but have a relationship with them. That is why we are bringing forward the designated body condition in the Bill. It rather sounds as if he questions the basis for us having counter-terror legislation, or this legislation, at all. I disagree with him on that. I think we have a suitable legal framework, under both the Terrorism Act 2000 and this new Bill, to deal with all the threats that this country faces, including those that are emerging as new ways for people to put our citizens at risk.

Let me turn to the threat posed by Iran. We are debating this Bill in the shadow of a recent surge in hostile activity by the Iranian state. In just a single year, MI5 has tracked and disrupted over 20 potentially lethal Iranian plots. These have targeted dissidents, media organisations and critics of the Iranian regime, and they pose a real and enduring threat to our Jewish community here at home.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady has already spoken powerfully about attacks on politicians, and the Prime Minister’s home was recently attacked. One point she has not raised, but hopefully will come to, is the nature of the media engagement that follows attacks. Lies and distortions have been used to suggest all number of different abuses by the Prime Minister—all of them false—when this was simply a Russian-paid attack on his home. Does she agree that it is not just Russia that is doing this? PressTV and anybody who has taken money from it have been active participants in the hate-filled propaganda that we see spreading, online and offline, in our country, encouraging murder and attacks on Jewish people, and attacks on our entire democracy.

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is incumbent on all parliamentarians to reflect on the platforms we appear on, and what those platforms are seeking to do. There will always be a balance to be struck with freedom of speech and other matters, but where activities lead people to fall foul of the law, they will be pursued with the full force of the law—whether that is this Bill, the National Security Act 2023, or any other part of our criminal legislation framework.

On the attacks on the Prime Minister’s home, let me just say, factually, what happened in the criminal justice system. It was not part of the prosecution’s case that there was any additional direction of that activity. That was not part of the evidence. I would not want to let that stand without making that clear about the prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

I totally agree with the hon. Member, and that is why we Opposition Members support the legislation. On AI, we can all see these challenges coming. We need to work cross-party and support the Government in finding ways to address them, because this is essentially the challenge of our age. Of course, AI will be able to strengthen our defences, but we should not be naive; the same tool that helps a defender to patch faster will of course also enable an attacker to breach faster. We have seen this with hostile states. Russia has already integrated cyber-sabotage, propaganda and deniable proxy activity into its campaign against the west. The same can be said for North Korea, which has not been touched on much in this debate, and Iran.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The internet outage in Iran knocked out a large percentage—5% or 10%, depending on who we believe—of Scottish separatist sites on social media. Do we genuinely believe that Iran is the only country seeking to weaponise social media? On one account, for example, someone claimed to be a nurse from Glasgow, but was fluent in Persian. Is it not likely that China and North Korea are doing exactly the same thing?

[Sir Oliver Dowden]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Separatism makes a country weaker, and there is no doubt that our enemies will encourage it. The example that he cited, which I also saw, is very telling of exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, and I am glad to hear that she has been meeting those organisations. The Prime Minister made two promises, and this Bill fulfils one of them. Proscribing the IRGC is the other, and I will come to that in a moment.

This Bill captures the sophistication of the entities that it seeks to target: those groups operating under alternative names and front organisations. It targets them to ensure that they are unable to exploit any potential loopholes. Creating the new power of designation—which is almost equivalent to proscription but not quite the same, as we have heard in this debate—is absolutely welcome. The Bill also makes supporting designated bodies for a prohibited purpose—including arranging meetings, professing support for them or materially assisting their activities in the UK—a serious criminal offence. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the previous Security Minister for enduring my endless questions about this issue, both in this House and in private. I am very appreciative that the Bill does what I have been asking for it to do, and what many other Members of this House have been asking for it to do. I am also very pleased that offences will carry substantial penalties, including sentences of up to 14 years, which is absolutely the right move.

I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) said about this being primary legislation, and he is right to say that today’s discussion has to be about the content of the Bill, not the bodies that we seek to proscribe through it. I absolutely take his point, and he set out a very eloquent argument about what he sees as the problems with the legislation. However, given the impact of the IRGC on this country and on the communities I speak to, I want to take this opportunity to set out not only why this legislation should pass through its Commons stages today, but why it should be used to proscribe the IRGC as soon as possible, as I will not have many further opportunities to do so.

There is no clearer threat to the UK and the British Jewish community than that posed by the IRGC. We know that the IRGC directs terror abroad, and we know it funds Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. We know that it brutally crushes dissent at home in Iran and murdered more than 30,000 people in the January protests, and it continues to repress its people as well as cut off internet access, which makes us unable to update the figures and to know what is truly going on in some parts of the country. We know that the IRGC is a clear and present danger to Britain’s national security. It plans terror attacks here, it tries to radicalise people here, and it promotes extremism here.

I pay tribute to our security services for all the work they have done to protect us against the IRGC and others. As we know, MI5 confirmed last October that it had identified more than 20 potentially lethal plots, backed by Iran, in the previous year alone. On that point, I want to focus my remarks on the threat that the IRGC poses to the Jewish community in this country. As the Chief Rabbi said in April, our fellow citizens are facing a sustained campaign of violence and intimidation. We know that Jews have been stabbed on the streets of Golders Green. We know that Finchley Reform synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, and Jewish organisations and charities have all been targeted. We know that ambulances belonging to Hatzola, an organisation that serves the entire community, were burned.

Police investigations are ongoing, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on all the specific circumstances of each case, but we know that paid proxies are operating here. We also know that the US Department of Justice has identified paid proxies operating in our country that are directly linked to the IRGC, and the threat is not contained to Britain, with a number of attacks across Europe in recent months. The threat is not disputable. Senior intelligence figures such as the former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, have stated clearly that the IRGC poses a threat to the British Jewish community, and that threat is of long standing. Over the past decade, we have seen growing evidence of Iranian efforts to radicalise young people here. Senior IRGC commanders have addressed student audiences and urged them to

“raise the flag of the Islamic Revolution, Islam and martyrdom”,

and calling on them to join an “apocalyptic war”.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Member is making an extremely powerful speech—I do not find a word I disagree with—and I am very grateful to him for making it. However, this again shows why it would have been rather helpful to have a bit longer on this, because a small amendment around the use of slogans or the wearing of varieties of designated military insignia—IRGC or Hezbollah insignia in this case, but different things in other cases—would have been useful. Sadly, the way this is being rushed through makes that almost impossible. Would he agree?

[Mark Sewards]

I am certain that we will get on to the point the right hon. Member has raised in Committee, which is coming up soon. I do think those items are worth discussing, and that such scrutiny will be possible during the next stage. I would also take this opportunity to commend him, because he warned that Iran was recruiting criminal gangs to spy on the Jewish community. I think that was three years ago, and the threat has only got worse since. The reason why I am making this speech is that I want to underline the need to proscribe, or rather to designate, the IRGC as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent.

[Mark Sewards]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. I do not want to repeat myself too much, but the Prime Minister made this promise to the communities involved, and this is the perfect time to accelerate and get the Bill through Parliament before we get to the summer recess, so that we are not dealing with it in September, October or November.

To deter, counter and thwart Iran’s malign activities, we must take this firm action now, in line with my hon. Friend’s intervention, and this Bill will enable us to do so. As was said in the opening speeches, the Government have rightly ramped up sanctions against Tehran, targeting both the IRGC’s architects of repression at home and the pro-regime oligarchs overseas who enjoy the very freedoms that they deny to the Iranian people at home. However, sanctions alone cannot and have not curtailed the IRGC’s nefarious activities in the UK. Crucially, while sanctions primarily target an organisation’s or an individual’s financial activities, only designation as described in this Bill will allow us to criminalise those who are members, supporters or agents of a terrorist organisation.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real concern, particularly given what is going on in the Persian gulf at the moment, that when the Iranian Government were last given access to vast amounts of cash about 10 years ago, they used that money to murder Syrians, Iraqis, Yemenis and, in fact, anybody else they could get their hands on, and to boost their propaganda arms? That did enormous harm not just to the Jewish community—he is quite right to highlight the Jewish community—but to the UK and the whole of western civilisation, including the French, the Germans and many others. Does he not agree with me that the suggestion that billions of dollars may be handed over to the Iranian regime raises concerns that it will be equipped for a new round?

[Mark Sewards]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his powerful intervention. To be crystal clear, although we are talking about designation today and that gets into issues that are not covered by the Bill, I have serious concerns about the position the IRGC will be in following any potential peace deal. Peace is always welcome, of course it is—when people stop killing each other that should always be welcome—but the IRGC is the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terrorism. It being in a position of power? I can never be comfortable with that.

Sanctions alone cannot have the impact we want. The Bill allows us to designate those individuals who are operating in the UK. It also allows us to designate their supporters and anyone who chooses to support this terrorist organisation. And let us be in no doubt: the IRGC instigates and stokes terror, it funds terror, it directs terror. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation. It is the terror arm of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. Only this legislation will allow us to protect the British people from its nefarious activities on our shores. I commend the Government for bringing it forward. I commend the Prime Minister for keeping his promise. I ask him to keep the second one and proscribe and designate the IRGC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called. I welcome the Minister to her place. It is a great job—I enjoyed it, and I have no doubt that she will, too. Though she may have shorter fingernails at the end of the day than she started with, it is worth it for the opportunity to serve with some of the finest people in our Government. The intelligence services and the police that she will be working with are truly exceptional, and it is worth putting on the record the gratitude of the whole House for what they do.

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the death of my friend Jo Cox, and many of us have been wearing white roses in memory of her. When we last met, Jo and I were in one of the Committee rooms working on a report together entitled, “The Cost of Doing Nothing”. What we were talking about in that report was the action in Syria, the way in which the extremism in that country had torn it apart and how we had not acted in ways that we felt we should have done. I welcome very much what the Government are doing today, because they are demonstrating another response: they are not willing to stand aside and watch as the country gets torn apart in different ways. I will make criticisms in a moment, but I would first just like to place on the record my gratitude for the way in which the Government have approached this legislation. I agree with the broad sweep of it; I just wish they had given it a little bit more time, and I understand that the Minister will almost certainly agree with me.

Unusually, I would like to praise the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards). He made an absolutely outstanding speech and spoke brilliantly, not just for this whole House but for the country, on the threat to a particular community, which is actually a threat to us all. It is absolutely true that in too many ways the Jewish community are the canary in the coalmine of any society. When we see Jews under threat, when we see Jewish homes frightened, when we see Jewish sites vandalised—as sadly we are seeing too much—we know what is coming, and what is coming is not pretty.

But let us get back to the Bill because, while it is welcome, it makes that tragic error that we often make in this place—I know we made this error in our time as well—which is to seek the rapid answer rather than the complete one. In doing so, the Bill misses very slightly the challenge that is bound to come, because I am afraid that we do know what will come. By the way, I will no doubt support the Minister when she decides to use the powers, because she will be well advised by the teams we both know so well, but we know that when an organisation is designated, it will lawyer up, go to court and challenge her, and we will find ourselves going around the houses.

This is where I confess a failure of my own. One of the organisations that I sought to work on was the Islamic Centre of England. That organisation has the same connection to Islam that Christian organisations that claim the crusader cross, and that far-right baggage, have to the church of Christ. Let us be absolutely clear: it is a vile political organisation dressing itself up as a religious movement—there is nothing religious about it all—yet that organisation enjoys charitable status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) identified, and sadly, despite irregularities in its business and the way that it operates, it is still able to operate.

Let me list a couple more such organisations. Darul Hikma has praised Qasem Soleimani, the late head of the IRGC, whose death is certainly not mourned here, and it praised 7 October and the IRGC. The Abrar Islamic Foundation has praised Hezbollah and Hamas, and has run antisemitic and homophobic events. There are also the Ahl al-Bait Society Scotland—sadly, this reaches across the whole of the United Kingdom—Ahlulbayt Islamic Mission and Al-Ikhlas. They have all run, in various different ways, sessions praising the IRGC and supportive of Qasem Soleimani, which is entirely against not just the interests of the United Kingdom, but very particularly the interests of the Muslin community in the United Kingdom. Let us be absolutely clear about what the natural consequence of this will be: it will stir up sectarian and religious hatred. As the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley mentioned, we are first seeing the effect in the Jewish community—of course we are—but we all know where this will lead.

There are those of us who value all communities in our society, as I know the Home Secretary does, and who want Islam treated exactly the same as any religion. I think we Catholics are the only ones who are still lawfully discriminated against, but given that that excludes us only from the monarchy, I think we can be pretty comfortable with our position. Those of us who want to see all religions treated equally know that we simply cannot have poison poured into a few ears and pretend that does not happen.

I mentioned PressTV today, as well as the vile rumours being spread about the Prime Minister and others by Russia Today, among others, to show that we need to be conscious of what we are dealing with. Let us be quite clear: this is not a freedom of speech issue. This is no more a freedom of speech issue than the invasion of a hostile army is a right-to-roam issue. This is fundamentally about the deliberate actions of a state organisation—either the Russian, Chinese or Iranian state—to undermine us and tear us apart.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Many people say that he was the second best Conservative Security Minister, and I tend to agree with that. Might he continue to build the bridges that have already been formed across the House during this debate by inviting the Minister, when she winds up, to re-examine the charitable status of a whole range of organisations that have intimate connections with the Chinese, Iranian or Russian state, as a parallel exercise to the consideration of this legislation? That would seem to me to be a sensible move that we could agree today.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend, demonstrating why he leads the list of Security Ministers past and present, pre-empts me; I was coming to China. Here I declare various interests. I am a patron of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organisation that campaigns, just as the Government do, and as everybody does, against Iran having nuclear weapons. I am not sure that it is a contentious organisation to be a member of; I hope it is universally supported. Also, I am sanctioned by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian states. I want to highlight some of the issues that we are dealing with that have not quite come through in the debate so far.

Let us be honest: this Bill is shaped around the IRGC. It is shaped around a state organisation—a part of the Iranian constitutional structure—that is behaving like a terrorist group, because it is the sponsor of terrorism around the world. However, it is not alone; for example, we know that the so-called little green men who operated in Crimea were actually part of the Russian armed forces. There are Russian groups, such as the Wagner Group, that act as state-sponsored terrorist organisations in countries such as Mali. I am looking at the Home Secretary, here: I hope that those groups will be encapsulated in the Bill. It certainly reads as though it will cover them.

Let us look a little more directly at one question. There is an organisation that should be captured in this Bill but I suspect will not be: TikTok. The Home Secretary may wonder why I raise TikTok, so let me be quite clear. There are many social media platforms around the world, and I am not going to pretend that many of them are any better than a cesspit. They tend to encourage various forms of hatred. As an aside, when I meet people who have posted on those platforms in the flesh at constituency events, it turns out that they are absolutely charming people who would never be quite so rude to one’s face, but they are utterly vile online. That is quite remarkable, but there we go. I mention TikTok for this reason: other social media platforms respond to the triggers involved in advertising. Effectively, they respond to the interests of their shareholders. They may or may not like the product, but we know what they are doing. Unlike other platforms, which are edited for profit, TikTok is edited for effect. That is the difference.

Let us look at the TikTok effect after 7 October, for example. It did not push a particular ideology. It did not try to tell us, as the Soviets did in the 1920s, that more tractors were being produced in Minsk than in Manchester, or wherever. It does not seek to tell us that something is better; it seeks to tell us that there is nothing there—that it is all about hatred and division. It seeks to promote a horrific outcome that some people want, which is effectively a destroyed, torn-apart state that is hostile to itself. I am afraid that is what TikTok is doing, and not by accident. Its algorithm is controlled by the Ministry of State Security, through the Chinese Communist party, in Shenzhen. It is not based anywhere else. That algorithm effectively acts as an editor—just as a newspaper editor would. It quite deliberately promotes not one side, but both sides. If one side is promoted, we may get persuasion, but we still get unity. If both sides are promoted, we get division, anger, hostility and rage. I do not think that the Bill touches on that issue, but I urge the Minister to have a look at it in months to come.

There was a time, 20 or 30 years ago, when we would have said that a state-sponsored organisation was fundamentally human and needed people. It would have needed agents—someone to hire the car, rent the room or whatever it happened to be—but that is not true today. These organisations do not need to cross the border; they can write the code, programme the algorithm, watch the fire start, and shape it. Sadly, we have seen such division inspired in the Home Secretary’s own community, between Indian-origin and Pakistani-origin communities. We have seen the same fire being lit, not because China particularly sides with one side or the other—it does not—but because it just wants hostility in the UK, and this issue is a dividing line. When we look at the designation of organisations, we must remember that those organisations include businesses.

I support this Bill, and I am very grateful to the Minister and the Home Secretary for bringing it to the House. I very much envy the Minister her place, and I am sure that she will enjoy her role.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I think that there are some necessary differences between a terrorist organisation and a state-influenced or state proxy organisation, which the differences between the Bill and the National Security Act—which deals with terrorism—seek to bring out. Jonathan Hall said that the Bill “does the job” in closing that loophole. He also told the House that he thought it would be harder to achieve the prosecutions for designated organisations than those for terrorist organisations. The Bill builds on a tried and tested series of measures in the National Security Act, and we have developed it closely with operational partners. It does the job. We do not believe that it is tougher to get appropriate prosecutions up and running in this context.

[Tom Tugendhat]

No one, I think, respects Jonathan Hall more than we do. He has done an exceptional job for this country in many different ways. He is a man of the highest integrity and the greatest intellect, and we are very lucky to have him.

Given that it seems unlikely that the Home Secretary or the Minister will accept amendments today—I am sorry about that, but I heard their views—will the Minister engage in a conversation between now and the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords? There is a moment when we could introduce amendments that we feel would be of assistance to the Government and, in fact, would make us all stronger.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am more than happy to create a circumstance in which we can do that. I think there have been some misunderstandings about what protections are offered in the Bill, and some of the amendments seek to address gaps that are not actually there. However, I am more than happy to deal with that, and I will be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman to organise it before the Bill goes to the House of Lords.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said that the Bill did not take into account activity outside the UK. She was wrong to say that that was not covered. The offences capture activity outside the UK where it is contrary to the safety or interests of the UK, and case law has made it clear that the definition of “safety and interests of the UK” is wide. As I have said, we have worked closely with operational partners to shape the Bill, and we are confident that it will provide the powers that are needed. There have been successful prosecutions under the National Security Act, which demonstrates that powers of this kind work.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to note that applications fluctuate. Certainly, the 200,000 members of the BNO community who are already here are very much part of our community, but the numbers coming through now are much smaller.

That brings me to why this issue matters. ILR is not a technicality for Hongkongers; it is fundamental to their security and their ability to live a full life in this country, as has already been mentioned. Without ILR and, in due course, citizenship and a UK passport, families will be unable to travel safely. Considerable pension savings in Hong Kong can be accessed only once ILR has been granted, meaning that any delay to ILR could push some into severe hardship. ILR is the gateway to home student fee status. Until children in BNO families have ILR, many will be unable to afford university in the UK. Put bluntly, the way we design and implement these rules will determine the safety, socioeconomic security and contribution of tens of thousands of Hongkongers over the next few years.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am grateful for the speech that the hon. Member is making. He has highlighted many of the reasons why I wrote about this issue for The Atlantic more than six years ago, and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as the then Home Secretary, was able to change the law at the time. Does he agree that the importance of this change is fundamental, because it is not just about the ability to integrate here, but about fear of persecution abroad?

The reality is that in our own community now there are many Hongkongers who fear the long arm of the Chinese Communist party, and if they are not secure in their position here, they could be—or at least in their own minds they could be—dragged back to Hong Kong and very severely punished in pretty horrific ways, as Jimmy Lai’s case demonstrates. This is therefore actually about the liberty of British citizens and not just about the right of abode.

[James Naish]

The right hon. Member has been a tireless advocate for this group of people. I completely agree with everything that he said and I am sure we will continue to work together on these issues.

Over the weekend, I received hundreds of real-life stories from Hongkongers who fell into five main groups, of which a couple have already been referenced. Those groups are, first, self-employed people whose income has varied significantly from year to year since arriving here; secondly, primary carers, typically women, who have purposefully stayed at home to look after young or old dependants; thirdly, children still completing their education; fourthly, older couples who work limited hours for age and health reasons; and finally, families who for practical reasons will not be able to arrange for everybody to study and demonstrate linguistic competency in the next few months.

Hong Kong Democracy Activists

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. He will understand that the BNO route reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up this status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997. I am sure he will be aware that to be eligible for this route, applicants must have BNO status or be the eligible family member of someone with this status.

Since the route opened in January 2021, close to 220,000 visas have been granted to Hongkongers, who are making much-valued contributions to communities across the UK, including in his constituency. We will work closely with those constituencies and local authority areas to ensure that all those people feel properly valued and supported. If my hon. Friend has any specific concerns, I am happy to meet him to discuss them further.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

First, I want to say that one of the proudest things I was able to achieve over the past few years was the BNO visa route, which was a correct correction of a mistake made by this House nearly 40 years ago. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was in her place as shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, was able to introduce it when she was Home Secretary. The support I received from the Minister at the time was also gratefully received.

Turning to the threat to activists, as someone who is sanctioned and who occasionally gets letters to my home and text messages from random Hong Kong and Beijing numbers, I can only imagine how much more threatening that activity would be if I had connections or relatives in Hong Kong and mainland China. Will the Minister assure me that he is advertising as widely as possible the role of the counter-terrorism police in fighting not just terrorism, but the state threats that are appearing before us? The reality is, we do not expect war today to take its old nature of massed armies or invasions. We are instead seeing a pernicious undermining of the confidence in the British state and the credibility of our ability to protect our citizens and friends, which, in turn, undermines not just our position, but our economy and the freedom of our citizens.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he did in government. He raises some important and valid points. Let me say, first of all, that the matter of sanctioned Members of this House is something that we take incredibly seriously. The Foreign Secretary has personally raised his concerns about it at the highest levels. We will continue to keep it under very close review.

The right hon. Member made some other important points. I hope he will join me in welcoming the additional resource that the Prime Minister announced the other day for our operational partners and the intelligence services. He will know from his previous service what a hugely important role they fulfil in keeping our country safe. He knows, too, the seriousness that we attach to these matters, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on a cross-party basis to ensure that we maintain our national security.

Iranian State Threats

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the important work that he does through the all-party parliamentary group. He is absolutely right that illicit finance funds hostile activities, and this Government take it incredibly seriously. That is why we have appointed Baroness Hodge as the anti-corruption champion and we are in the process of producing an anti-corruption strategy, which the Government intend to publish before the summer recess. That is also why I recently visited the United Arab Emirates, because the nature of this particular challenge requires an international response. It is why the UK seeks to work with our international partners to do everything we can to tighten the screws on those who would seek to use illicit finance to fund terrorist activity. It is a priority for the Government. We are grateful for the support and work that he does and for the work that Baroness Hodge does, and we will continue it at pace.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay tribute to the Minister for the work he is doing on leading this fight against a hostile state that is doing so much against us. I join him in paying tribute not just to Jonathan Hall—he did amazingly good work for us in government and I am sure will be serving the Minister with the same dedication and diligence—but to MI5, whose leadership under Sir Ken McCallum has begun to put real focus on some areas that had previously slipped by.

Does the Minister agree that this is not just a domestic challenge? I recognise all that he has set out, but we need to be working on this matter with friends and allies. The pressures that we see in Iran today—the failure of the state, the emergence of a civil society and perhaps even, let us hope, the destruction of that dreadful regime that has occupied the country and tortured those people for so many years—require a whole-of-Government response. We are feeling the effects here in the United Kingdom because the poison is seeping out of Tehran.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done previously and for the support he has provided. I completely agree with what he said about Jonathan Hall. Jonathan Hall is a figure of great integrity and authority. We are lucky to have him, and we benefit hugely from the advice and support that he provides in his own, and very independent, way.

I completely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the leadership of MI5. We do not say a lot about them in this House for understandable reasons, but they do extraordinary work and we should be grateful for their service.

The right hon. Gentleman is completely right that this is not just a domestic challenge; it is a challenge that requires an international coalition of the willing, and we need to work incredibly closely with our partners—with the US, with our partners in Europe and partners in the region. We are progressing that work with colleagues in the Foreign Office and as the right hon. Gentleman knows—he reflected on the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—the Prime Minister personally takes it very seriously. These are the most profoundly important matters. We take them incredibly seriously, and we are working across Government and with our partners to address them.

United Front Work Department

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree. This Government’s approach will always be to work constructively across the House on matters relating to national security, but given the record of certain right hon. and hon. Opposition Members, I suggest that humility might be the order of the day for some of them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I do not want to go over the readiness of FIRS again and again. I will leave it at this: I was assured by the same officials who sit in the Box advising the Minister that it would be ready to go by the end of the year. Clearly the advice has changed. Only one thing in the Department has changed, which is the party leading it, so I can only assume that there has been a change of intent, but I am delighted that it will be ready to go by the summer—better late than never. The real question, of course, is whether it will be worth having. The advice from MI5 was very clear: if China is not in the enhanced tier, it will not be worth having. Will China be in that tier?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I take these matters incredibly seriously. He and I have known each other for a very long time. I therefore know that he will take on trust my assertion to him and to the House that the scheme was not ready to go when we arrived in government in July this year. We are working at pace. I have today given the House a timeframe and said that we are looking very closely, working with colleagues across Government, at how we can best structure the scheme. We will make announcements in the normal way in due course.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Dan Jarvis]

Clause 12 will allow the SIA to effectively operate as the regulator for the Bill by setting out its responsibilities, powers and role. The primary role of the SIA will be to provide support and guidance. However, it is also important that it has the powers necessary to investigate and monitor compliance, so that the legislation can be enforced effectively. Schedule 3 therefore grants powers to authorised inspectors to investigate whether persons responsible for premises or events are contravening or have contravened requirements of the Bill. The schedule outlines their powers to gather information, the use of warrants, their ability to enter premises without a warrant, and supporting offences.

Under the schedule, inspectors will be able to serve information notices to gather relevant information for inspection purposes. The notice could require a person to provide written detail relating to an investigation or to attend an interview. Inspectors may enter premises without a warrant, subject to certain conditions in paragraph 4. However, schedule 3 also provides for inspectors to apply for warrants to enter premises, with paragraph 6 setting out the powers afforded to inspectors once a warrant is issued. The schedule also creates criminal offences for failing to comply with information notices, obstructing authorised inspectors and impersonating inspectors.

Under clause 12, the SIA must prepare guidance about how it will exercise its functions, which must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Approved guidance must then be published and kept subject to review, and revised accordingly as needed. The SIA must also provide advice about the requirements of the Bill, as well as reviewing the effectiveness of the requirements in reducing the risk of harm and the vulnerability of premises and events in scope.

The clause also requires the SIA to comply with requests from the Secretary of State and provide an annual report, which is to be laid before Parliament. The SIA is the appropriate body to undertake this role, due to its years of experience in increasing security standards and ensuring public protection. I hope that the Committee will support clause 12 and schedule 3.

I turn now to new clause 2, tabled by the shadow Minister, the right Member for Tonbridge. Establishing the SIA as the new regulator for this legislation, which is the first of its kind, will take at least 24 months. That is in line with the timeframes taken to establish new regulatory functions in existing bodies over recent years. I am sure he will agree that it would not be possible or fair to judge a new regulator’s performance before the regime has been established. Once the SIA has taken on its new role, it will take time before there is robust data against which to evaluate its performance.

The legislation already establishes several checks and balances on the performance of the SIA, as is standard with arm’s length bodies. They include the production of an annual report on performance, enabling the Secretary of State to issue directions to the SIA, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has the power to appoint board members and approve statutory guidance for publication.

Further to this, I have confidence that the SIA is the right home for the regulator because it already plays an important role in safeguarding the public through its statutory and non-statutory work. With a wealth of experience in inspecting and enforcing legislation, it better protects the public. With the addition of its new function, the SIA will be able to raise security standards for both people and places.

The Home Office will maintain appropriate levels of oversight and accountability to ensure that the regulator is delivered as intended. Once operational, the Secretary of State will closely monitor the performance of the regulator to ensure that it carries out its functions under the Bill effectively. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I tabled the new clause on the SIA for the simple reason that its reputation goes before it. Work that was done in the Department under a previous regime demonstrated that there were alternatives, which we felt would offer not only better value for money but greater ministerial oversight and better accountability to those who are forced to use its services. But clearly, with the Government’s majority, it is for the Minister to decide.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 13

Compliance notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Tugendhat, do you wish to comment?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Simply to say that, although there needs to be a maximum sum to levy as a penalty, £18 million strikes any reasonable person as extremely high. Although we completely agree with compliance, the fines strike me as a little out of proportion.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendments made: 5, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, at end insert—

“(za) in the case of a contravention of a requirement imposed by a notice under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 (requirement to attend and answer questions), £5,000; paragraph 3(1)(b)”

This amendment sets at £5,000 the maximum monetary penalty that an individual may be given for failure to comply with a requirement imposed under paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, after “if” insert

“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Amendment 7, in clause 18, page 13, line 13, after “if” insert

“, in a case to which paragraph (za) does not apply,”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 14, line 1, at end insert—

“(za) subsection (1)(za),”—(Dan Jarvis.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 5.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Offences of failing to comply with compliance notice or restriction notice

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 25 and 26 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

The clause prevents a person from bringing a claim in private law against a person responsible for qualifying premises or events for a breach of statutory duty where they have failed to comply with requirements in the Bill. The Government consider it appropriate that means of redress for non-compliance with the new regime should be limited to enforcement by the SIA.

The SIA will have a range of enforcement actions, which are underpinned by some criminal offences, as has already been debated. It is not considered necessary to allow persons to bring private claims for simple non-compliance, such as seeking compensation for the responsible person failing to put in place public protection procedures. However, the inclusion of the clause does not preclude or otherwise affect any right of action that a person may have independently of the bail.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Powers to amend this Part

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 32, page 22, line 20, leave out from “for” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“enhanced duty premises to be standard duty premises.”

This amendment prevents standard duty premises from becoming enhanced duty premises at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This is a simple repetition of the amendments we have made throughout the Bill to alleviate the burden on small businesses and ensure that the balance is appropriate.

[Dan Jarvis]

I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment. He seeks to remove the provision in the clause that would allow the Secretary of State, via regulations, to make standard duty premises be treated as enhanced duty premises. It would have the effect of limiting the Secretary of State to only being able to provide that premises that would ordinarily be in the enhanced tier be treated as if standard duty premises. That is already the case in the Bill for certain premises, such as places of worship.

As I have explained, the nature and level of the threat from terrorism can evolve and change rapidly, with different behaviours, methods and tactics emerging. It is therefore important that the Government can respond quickly to protect the public if it becomes evident that there is a particular threat to certain types of premises and that the public protection measures in the enhanced tier should be in place there to reduce vulnerability and the risk of harm.

I again reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that regulations to make amendments to schedule 1 under this power would be subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the express approval of both Houses of Parliament. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Interpretation of this Part

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dan Jarvis]

The clause is technical in nature, defining certain terms used throughout the Bill. For example, the clause provides that the meaning of “terrorism” in the Bill is the same as in the Terrorism Act 2000. The clause is necessary to provide the meaning of these terms for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Licensing: disclosure of plans of premises

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Briefly, clauses 35 and 36 are general provisions required for the operation of the Bill. Clause 35 sets out the parliamentary procedure accompanying the regulations. Clause 36 details the territorial extent of the Bill: parts 1 and 3 of the Bill extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; part 2 of the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, with part 1 of schedule 4 extending to England and Wales and part 2 of schedule 4 extending to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Commencement

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 37, page 25, line 5, after “force” insert “for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements”.

See explanatory statement to NC1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 37, page 25, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Parts 1 and 2 come into force for standard duty premises requirements on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint in line with section [Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements].”.

See explanatory statement to NC1.

New clause 1—Independent review of operation of enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements—

“(1) Within 18 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements, including any recommendations for the implementation of the standard duty.

(2) The review in subsection (1) must—

(a) assess the level of costs and liability transferred to businesses and individuals arising as a consequence of the statutory provisions in this Act;

(b) consider any wider implications for businesses and individuals in meeting the new public protection measures and any potential need for additional statutory safeguards, support or guidance for businesses and individuals as result of the passing of this Act; and

(c) be led by an independent chair and comprise a panel comprising representatives from the hospitality, live music, performing arts, cultural and retail sectors, grassroots sports venues, small businesses and local government.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the review specified in subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State may not make a regulation under section 37(2A) until—

(a) the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) the report specified in subsection (3) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”.

This new clause, together with Amendments 18 and 19, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the enhanced duty premises and qualifying events requirements before commencing the standard duty requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am afraid that amendment 18 is on the same point we have made throughout, which is about overburdening.

[Dan Jarvis]

Again, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for these amendments. While I completely understand the sentiment underpinning them, the Government do not support them. I would, however, like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from implementation, which is why a robust monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor the Bill’s effectiveness is in place. What is more, the Government have already committed to undertaking a thorough post-implementation review, which will assess whether the legislation is meeting its policy objectives, including analysing the costs and impacts on businesses and other premises in scope.

The Government have been clear that, following Royal Assent, we expect there to be an implementation period of at least 24 months, which will allow for the set-up of the regulator, while ensuring sufficient time for those responsible for premises and events in scope to understand their new obligations and to plan and prepare. Detailed guidance will be provided to assist those in scope to prepare for the requirements, as well as extensive communications and engagement with business and organisations.

Furthermore, as I have already set out, the Bill’s requirements in the standard tier are focused on straightforward procedures designed to increase preparedness and reduce the physical risk to the public from acts of terrorism. The procedures are intended to be simple and have no cost, other than staff time, to develop and implement, with no requirement to purchase or install any additional equipment beyond what they already have in place.

For this combination of factors, we believe that the Government’s approach will provide those in scope with sufficient time and information to prepare for the Bill’s requirements. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge, and other hon. Members, also heard in this week’s evidence sessions from several witnesses who raised the importance of the standard tier, and the crucial public-protection outcomes that it can achieve. I share that sentiment; the standard-tier requirements are important provisions that will help to mitigate the risk of physical harm from acts of terrorism. We therefore do not consider that mandating a staggered approach to implementation in the way proposed is currently required. We will keep the Bill’s measures under review and have powers to adjust the regime if necessary. For those reasons, we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

We are nearly there, Sir Edward.

[The Chair]

It’s going very well—not what I am used to.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It’s your chairmanship! I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

New clause 1 has already been debated and is not being moved. New clause 2 has been debated already, but do you wish to comment on it, Mr Tugendhat?

[Tom Tugendhat]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. I will comment on it very happily, and merely repeat that the SIA is a regulator that has faced significant challenges over recent years and, again, I raise the question as to whether it is the appropriate regulator. As usual, however, the Minister would have the numbers in a vote.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

With your leave, Sir Edward, I will take this opportunity to thank you for chairing this Committee and to thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions, not just today but in proceedings on Tuesday. I will also take the opportunity to say a particular thank you to all those members of my Department who have worked incredibly hard to draw this legislation together, in conjunction with the staff of this House. Their efforts have been very much appreciated. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of what we have achieved as we have progressed the Bill through the House.

[Tom Tugendhat]

It would be churlish of me not to thank you, Sir Edward, for the speed and efficiency with which you have guided us through this. This is also an opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the Minister, who has been a friend for many years—nearly 20 years, actually. It is a wonderful symmetry that, on my last day on the Front Bench for my party, I am doing what I did when we first met, which is scrutinising him.

[The Chair]

It has been a pleasure to serve you all, and it has been so easy—no controversy. Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (Third sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 31st October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge, in his place. He and I have known each other for a very long time, and as this may be our final exchange—

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

It will be.

[Dan Jarvis]

Well, as it sounds as though it will be our final exchange, I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his service and wish him well for the future.

The purpose of clause 1 is to aid the reader of the Bill to understand its content and structure, which I am sure will be a great relief to members of the Committee as we debate the Bill. As the clause provides an overview of the Bill, this seems an appropriate moment to set out a reminder of why we have sought to legislate.

The first responsibility of any Government is to keep the public safe; that is, and will always be, our No. 1 priority. Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 43 late-stage plots, and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. As the MI5 director general, Ken McCallum, set out last month, this country is today subject to

“the most complex and interconnected threat environment we’ve ever seen.”

As can sadly be seen from recent terrorism incidents, the public may be targeted at a wide range of public venues and spaces. We know, too, that the terror threat has become less predictable and potential attacks harder to detect and investigate. That is why those who run premises and events need to know what they can do, and what they should be doing, to keep the public safe. That view is supported by inquests and inquiries into terror attacks, which have recommended the introduction of legislation to improve the safety and security of public venues. That includes, but is not limited to, monitored recommendation 4 in volume 1 of the Manchester Arena inquiry.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place, or appropriate measures taken, to keep us safe. Wherever people are and whatever they are doing, they deserve to both be and feel safe, ensuring protection of life and of our way of life.

While we recognise that the risks posed by terrorism are already proactively considered for some premises and events, there is a lack of consistency, which needs addressing. The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill—Martyn’s law—will remedy that inconsistency. The Bill’s proposals have been subject to extensive development, and a draft version of this legislation was subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny under the previous Government. Indeed, the shadow Minister gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on that matter.

The Bill that we have brought forward has been adjusted to strike an appropriate balance between protecting the public and avoiding an undue burden on premises. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not be suitable for all premises and events, which is why, for example, we have adapted the Bill’s requirements to include the “reasonably practicable” test. That will enable those responsible for qualifying premises or events to take into consideration what is within their control and the resources they have available to them, as well as what is suitable and appropriate for their venue.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to Figen Murray, from whom we heard so movingly on Tuesday. She has without doubt been the driving force behind this Bill. I am sure that all Committee members will agree that Figen is an inspiration to us all. With that, I look forward to the exchanges to come in the course of proceedings in this Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge is withdrawing his amendment.

[Tom Tugendhat]

No, I am not withdrawing it; I am just not moving it.

[Tim Roca]

Fair enough. But I will speak to clause 1 of the Bill. I will focus on small businesses, because we heard a lot in the evidence session about the impact on them. They are the lifeblood of our economy and key contributors to keeping our high streets vital and thriving.

It is important to reflect on the evidence we heard about the impact that the Bill will have on small businesses, particularly what Mayor Andy Burnham said about the experience they have had in Greater Manchester already. The city council in Manchester held partnership sessions with large and small businesses alike—over 2,000 people across 10 sessions representing 700 businesses. They then held the tabletop discussions that Figen Murray talked about, including with large spaces such as the Printworks, all the way down to small independent restaurants. The response of those businesses was clear. They believe that there is a need for the legislation, and they do not believe that the provisions are prohibitively onerous. They believe that, at most, it would cost them two hours of staff time.

I will quote from Gareth Worthington, the night time economy officer at CityCo and Manchester business improvement district, which I am happy to place in the Library:

“If a venue operator does not know how to evacuate their venue they should not be running that venue and if training can be provided to help make that evacuation safer then venues should grasp it with both hands.”

Businesses recognise that their first duty is to keep their patrons safe, and that sensible practical measures can be taken to reduce the chance of harm. Businesses are aware of the threats out there. The Minister alluded to those when he spoke: 43 late-stage terrorist plots foiled, and in the last year the number of state-threat investigations launched by the security services increased by 48%. The practical measures in the Bill are necessary, reasonable and proportionate.

Finally, I want to talk about Figen Murray, as she is one of my constituents. I cannot put it better than the way Mayor Andy Burnham phrased it:

“Figen responded to an awful, evil act of hate, with love…Everything she has done since losing her son has been about making the world a better place in his memory.”

He also said:

“Through her work with young people and her campaign for Martyn’s Law, she is helping to prevent future tragedies and give every parent peace of mind. She is a real icon of Greater Manchester.”

I am proud that she is one of my constituents.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Given that this is the last time I will speak on this Bill Committee, I want to pay tribute to Figen and Brendan for the work they have done.

There is always a danger with such Bills that we put the blame not on the perpetrator but on those who are actually victims. I say that because the businesses that must make provision, pay the cost and bear the burden are also victims of the perpetrators. Let us be absolutely clear: for all that this law lays out the responsibilities on businesses, the true responsibility falls on those perpetrating these attacks.

Today, as Ken McCallum would tell us, the Iranian state is a prime originator, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a feeder, of the evil we see perpetrated. It is the various jihadi extremist organisations that make this country less safe, and different aspects of other political parties also make it more dangerous. We must be absolutely clear that responsibility for the actions we are talking about actually falls not on the businesses but on those who encourage, tolerate and perpetrate terrorism. Let us be absolutely clear today that one of the principal vectors for this violence comes straight out of Tehran and through various organisations that are still operating in this country despite many attempts to close them down.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale, for Dudley and for Macclesfield. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall; the Government appreciate the Liberal Democrat party’s support, and I am happy to work, and have further conversations, with him before Report on the important point that he raised about training.

Finally, I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I completely agree with his point about responsibility, and he is right. He will know that this new Government take these matters incredibly seriously, and I can give him and the rest of the Committee an absolute assurance that we will not rest in seeking to address the points he made and the concerns he dealt with admirably when he was the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Qualifying premises

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “200” and insert “300”.

This amendment sets the threshold for qualifying premises at 300 individuals.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 20, in clause 32, page 22, line 9, leave out “100” insert “200”.

This amendment sets the floor for standard duty at 200 individuals.

Amendment 21, in clause 32, page 22, line 12, leave out “500” and insert “799”.

This amendment sets the floor for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events at 799 individuals.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I tabled the amendments for the simple reason that a burden will fall on businesses and on individuals; we can belittle it and say that complying will take only an hour or two, but for many small businesses that is a significant burden. As was made clear in the evidence session only the other day, the burden on local authorities, including at parish level for parish halls, can change the way in which trustees approach this issue, which is why we looked to make the changes that I recognise the Minister has indeed made.

It is important to ensure that the burdens do not grow. That is why I have tabled some of the amendments before us, which change some of the fines and request a change from simply issuing an instruction to introducing a statutory instrument—a very specific moment when the Minister actually has to make a decision and bring the issue back to Parliament. We can belittle the hours, but trustees and volunteers at village halls make their own time available—I speak from personal experience, and others will have seen this as well—so if the burden is too great, plenty of village halls will simply close because we are asking people to take on more than they are willing to give.

That is why we have tabled the amendments, but as they all speak to the same point, which is not overburdening people, my remarks can be taken to apply to them as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca]

I want to speak briefly to the point about thresholds, which has just been discussed. The consultations prior to the Bill were based on a threshold of 100 at the standard tier, and I welcome the ability the Bill gives the Secretary of State to reduce the threshold back to that, should the evidence warrant that. I think Members will be reassured by some of the safeguards the Minister has just talked about, which would have to be in place before any such change happened.

In the protect duty public consultation, half of respondents thought that the threshold should be 100. Moving it to 200 has already taken 100,000 premises out of the scope of the legislation, leaving 180,000 within it. Raising the threshold to 300 would in effect remove the standard tier altogether. Figen has been very clear on this point:

“Raising the threshold of 200 even higher would mean that proportionality would no longer exist”.

She has also pointed out that in her small town of Poynton, in my constituency, a threshold of 200 would already mean that not a single venue is covered by this legislation. A move to 300 would therefore be a mistake and fatal to the purpose of the Bill.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Given the very obvious numbers on the Committee, there is no point in pushing the amendment to a vote, but I still believe that the burden on small businesses is too great. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Specified uses of premises

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 10, schedule 1, page 26, line 15, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 and insert—

“Entertainment and leisure activities

3 Use (other than a use mentioned elsewhere in this Schedule) for the provision of entertainment, leisure or recreation activities of any description, where the activity is principally for the benefit of visiting members of the public.”

This amendment makes general provision about premises used by the public for entertainment, leisure or recreation activities and replaces references to specific types of such activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I wanted to speak on this clause because it is arguably the most important component of this legislation and could have the biggest impact. Obviously we all hope that terrorist events do not happen, but we must be alert to the possibility that they can, and to what we collectively need to do to prepare for that situation.

Enhanced-tier organisations, particularly those at the upper end such as stadiums, will already have many operations in place to prepare for that. They will do table-top exercises; they will do war games; they will designate staff; they will have protocols. But for the standard tier, in particular, will not automatically be doing that. As we see the terror threat evolving to target those smaller standard-tier institutions, it is important that we prompt them, through this legislation, to do that thinking.

The former US Under-Secretary of State for Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, talks about the distinction between “pre-boom” and “boom” with terrorist events. Pre-boom, we can do a lot of work to stop terrorists—put in checks and do things—but we have to think about what we do in the moment when the terrorist attack has already begun. That is not the time for institutions, particularly small institutions, to be thinking, “What is the exit route? What do we need to do? Who’s in charge here?” In reference to American school shootings, Juliette Kayyem says that the least useful person, once a school shooting has started, is the person who says, “We should have banned guns.” It is too late to be having that conversation, and the gun is already in the school. People need to be prepared for that situation.

The four requirements under subsection (3) are small, and quite intuitive, prompts that we are asking of standard-tier institutions; but in giving those prompts we could be encouraging them to take the small steps that will, when the terrorist event happens, affect the outcome and could really save lives. This is a really important clause.

The Opposition have made the point that the clause presents a burden on business, and it is true that it is bringing into scope organisations that probably have not had this burden placed upon them before. Admittedly, there is a component of burden being placed here—but actually it is not the legislation that is doing that; it is the evolving terror threat, which we are responding to. That is why it is important to note that the proposals made here—those four requirements—are straightforward. As I say, they are almost intuitive and commonsensical. They are not onerous and they are low-cost.

My constituency, the city centre of Edinburgh, is event central. We have hundreds of events there every week, and in August we host the third-biggest ticketed event in the world—double the number of people go to events in that month as go to the Olympics. But they are not all in one place. It is not one big stadium; they are spread throughout the city.

Some of those events, such as the Tattoo, would qualify for the enhanced tier, but many of them would be standard tier. If we can prompt them to make these changes, we really could make a huge impact. If we do not do that and there is a chilling effect because people feel insecure, the burden on organisations will significant; we need to take that seriously. That is why the distinction between standard and enhanced is appropriate, and I think the requirements being made of the standard tier are the right ones.

This very important clause codifies something that society should be doing anyway, given the evolving terror threat. The way we will know it has had an impact is that we will never hear about it again, because the prompts will mean that further action is not required and tragedies do not happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Public protection measures for enhanced duty premises and qualifying event

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 6, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from creating further requirements for enhanced duty premises by regulations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 5, line 8, leave out subsection 6.

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to omit or amend the description of public protection measures for enhanced premises and qualifying events without regard to the considerations set out in Clause (6)6.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This very simple amendment is in line with the others that I have already spoken about. It would limit the Government’s power to exert extra burdens on small businesses.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. The Government consider that specifying further measures is an important power for the Secretary of State and must be available to ensure effective protection of the public through these measures.

Having the ability to specify further public protection measures through regulations means that the requirements of the enhanced duty can be amended to reflect changes in the terrorism threat, advances in technological solutions and our response to them. For example, there may be lessons learned from future incidents, further common types of attack may emerge, or best practice may evolve.

The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment would limit the Government’s ability to protect the public and safeguard them from harm. I understand that the intention behind it may relate to fears over the burden that future measures may create. However, the clause is drafted to constrain the power to be exercisable only where it is considered that the further measures will reduce vulnerability to, or the risk of physical harm from, an attack. It is intended to ensure that new requirements are limited to those necessary to protect the public, and remain in line with the overall objectives of the measures under the clause. Given the evolving nature of terrorism and the threat it poses, the Government consider it necessary to include this power, and therefore do not support the amendment.

On amendment 26, the Government consider it important to be able to remove or amend public protection measures from the list in subsection (3). For example, the Government might identify potential amendments to improve the measures through lessons learned and evolving best practice. This power is drafted so that the Secretary of State may remove or amend the types of measures only if they consider that doing so will not either increase the risk of physical harm to individuals or increase the vulnerability of the premises or event to the risk of acts of terrorism. That is in accordance with the overall objectives of the measures within this clause, as stated in subsection (2).

Were we to agree to the amendment, specified measures could be amended or removed without a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to expressly consider how those public protection objectives would be effective in taking away or altering a measure in the list approved by Parliament. The Government do not consider that appropriate and therefore respectfully do not support the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Enhanced duty premises and qualifying events: documenting compliance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dan Jarvis]

Clause 7 places a legislative requirement on those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events to prepare and maintain a document that records their compliance in relation to putting in place procedures, under clause 5, and measures, under clause 6. This is necessary to ensure that premises are able to more easily demonstrate compliance, and the Security Industry Authority is able to assess that against the Bill’s requirements. Many premises will already be documenting similar mitigations in regard to existing security plans for non-legislative purposes—fire safety and health and safety legislation, for example.

Documents should contain statements that relate to the public protection procedures and measures that are implemented, or proposed to be implemented, at their premises or event. Documents should also contain assessments to provide a rationale as to how the proposed procedures and measures will reduce both physical harm to individuals present and vulnerabilities of the premises or event if an attack were to occur.

When complete, the document should contain the totality of the procedures and measures deployed and sufficient detail to enable the authority to assess whether those responsible for premises and events are compliant with the Bill’s requirements. In the first instance, those responsible for enhanced duty premises and events are required to provide the document as soon as reasonably practicable after it is prepared and within 30 days of any subsequent revision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Requirements to co-ordinate and co-operate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (First sitting)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Shadow Minister, do you have any questions?

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I have had the great privilege of meeting Figen and Brendan over many months on this, so I have no questions.

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

Q I reiterate your comments, Dame Siobhain, about the admiration we all hold for Figen and Brendan and for the campaigning that they have done. Figen is a constituent of mine and I know we are all very proud of her in Macclesfield. May I ask you, Figen, what you think is the most important element of this Bill?

Figen Murray: I think it is that as many places as possible are covered. We as a campaign team are concerned about the threshold, if I am honest. I live in a small town —more like a village—and with the original 100 threshold, quite a few of the restaurants as well as the little theatre we have and the pubs would have been covered under the law. With the change in the threshold, my little town is now not coming into scope at all and is completely not secure under Martyn’s law. It concerns me. The change from the 100 threshold to 200 will exclude about 100,000 premises. It feels like quite a lot now no longer need to be within that scope. It worries me.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by extending my support to the Home Secretary for whatever incident is going on in Southport, and to Merseyside police, given the incidents we are sadly seeing in Merseyside today?

Earlier this month, the right hon. Lady refused to rule out the UK accepting migrants from European countries in exchange for a returns deal with Europe. Does she accept that under any deal she does, some of those sent to the United Kingdom from the European Union could harbour extremist ideologies or pose a security threat? Will she commit to ensuring strong safeguards, including a right of refusal on a case-by-case basis, to stop anyone who could put Britain’s security at risk from entering this country?

[Yvette Cooper]

There will always need to be proper safeguards on security, and proper security checks on those who come to this country, but the problem with the boat crossings is that they undermine that border security. There are no checks on dangerous boat crossings, which put lives at risk, and on who criminal gangs choose to put into boats. We are clear that we need stronger border security. That is why we are setting up a new border security command, and counter-terror powers in new legislation. We recognise that returns—for example, of failed asylum seekers—have dropped substantially since the last Labour Government were in place. We have to turn that around; we want to increase returns.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by sending my congratulations and those of my party to the hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected today, the hon. Members for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes)? I congratulate them all; I am sure they will fulfil their roles as Deputy Speakers with great integrity and honour.

I turn briefly to some of the maiden speeches, of which there have been the most extraordinary number. I am grateful to have sat through many of them, although perhaps not all. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) brings fantastic previous service to the House, although I hope he is not bitten by another dog. I must also pay tribute to his wife Caroline’s courage and his campaign. I also cite the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is not shy of a cake. Although that may not be the public service or public health message that she wishes to bring, it is one that I share. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) highlighted the Glasshouse, which is indeed at the cultural heart of our nation. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) gave a moving account of a tragic loss, and his campaign for recognising baby loss is one that will be backed across the whole House. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) surprised us all by actually discussing the subject of the debate.

The direct access of the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) to the Chancellor will no doubt raise huge hopes in her constituency. The addiction of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to ice cream suggests that he should team up with the hon. Member for Darlington. I suggest they might one day be friends.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) does belong here, no matter what she says and no matter what anybody else says. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) taught us the meaning of pier envy, which was a new one on me. The baby girl of the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will no doubt bring enormous joy, but if my experience is anything to go by, enormous sleepless nights, too. No doubt she too will be voting in the Lobby very soon.

I must pay enormous tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) in healthcare. As a child I was a frequent flyer and user of the William Harvey hospital, so I am grateful that he continues to serve in that community. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) hid a king or found one—I am not sure quite which. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made a passionate defence of the need for domestic energy production, and I share that view enormously. I am sorry he does not share it with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), but perhaps he will inform him better.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) had kind words to say about our friend Alex Chalk, who served the House and that constituency with great integrity and decency. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) recalled the last battle on British soil and is now seeking to power our country with nuclear energy. As he will know well, this country only ever builds nuclear power stations under a Conservative Government.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) committed to work on disabilities, and that sentiment will be shared by many here. The campaigning technique of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) is undoubtedly original. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) can only hope to break the track record of getting a second term in that seat, and even those of us on the Opposition Benches might be supportive of that.

The history of piracy of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) will no doubt worry the Whips something rotten. I am sure she will fail to put them at their ease—certainly not so early in the Parliament. The fashion advice of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) would be welcomed by those of us who missed the 1960s, but he no doubt will be contributing. I thank him for his kind words to our friend Greg Hands, who served the constituency so well.

I turn to the King’s Speech, rather than the maiden speeches—the King, after all, has given one himself. Sadly he did not choose his own words, and I am not sure they were the ones he would have chosen. It is, however, as ever a pleasure to be speaking across the Dispatch Box from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), and I wish her the very best of luck in her new role. Becoming a Labour Immigration Minister must be a strange experience. After all, Barbara Roche, one of her predecessors, wrote that she was “appalled” to be appointed Immigration Minister in the Blair Government. One of Barbara’s contemporaries, David Blunkett, famously said that there was “no obvious limit” to the number of migrants who could settle in the United Kingdom. I suspect we will not get such frank honesty from this Prime Minister or this Home Secretary. However, in their hearts I suspect that neither of them truly believes in controlling legal and illegal migration.

The hon. Member for Wallasey has my sympathy. It cannot be easy to defend a Government who have already scrapped the deterrents that worked, lost the commander of the border strategy unit and now all but offered an amnesty. Oh dear, these days are difficult, are they not? No doubt she has already read the advice of her frontline officers, because the National Crime Agency was extremely clear. It has been tasked by that Government to tackle criminal gangs, but it has already said that we need an effective deterrence agreement, and since it has publicly pointed out that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries without a deportation scheme, I am certain that it will not have minced its words in private.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Dame Angela Eagle)]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady will get plenty of time in just a moment.

Despite that, the Home Secretary has promised the British people results and urged us to put faith in her plans. I have long heard and listened to the right hon. Lady, who has been a friend for many years, so let me ask the question put yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). If, God forbid, the Home Secretary is wrong and the numbers rise—I know; wonders will never happen—what will she do? Will she take responsibility and resign, or will she reach for the old Blair-Brown playbook that is the golden thread running through the King’s Speech and instead farm out the blame, set up a new quango, pretend it is not her problem and hope that it all goes away?

I am sorry to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that having listened to the debates over the last few days, it seems that Labour’s approach to illegal immigration is absolutely typical of how it plans to govern. This is a Government who will be overbearing when they should stand back and absent when they should stand tall. They will be too hesitant in defending our country from her enemies abroad, too controlling—or uncontrolling—of our borders, failing to protect decent people from criminals. But they will be all too willing to creep into every corner of our personal lives. This is a Government who seem determined to prioritise left-wing ideology over the interests of the British people; I am afraid that is what Labour does.

That is what is happening in education, where the Government are rolling back the quiet revolution that has made our schools some of the best in the western hemisphere; in energy, where they claim that they will reduce bills by creating an energy company that does not generate energy; and in skills, where the best they can offer a generation that aspires is another bloated regulator. Those are the policies of a Government who value jobs for bureaucrats over results and ideological purity over the wellbeing of the British people.

I am afraid that the economy cannot afford such ideology. We need honesty in the challenges that we face. Despite the Chancellor’s attempts to talk down the position that she has found herself in, that is indeed what she has inherited. Despite the selective memories on the Government Benches, we know the facts. We have the lowest inflation and the fastest-growing economy of any G7 country, the deficit is down, unemployment is down and the economy is growing, all despite a global pandemic and a war raging in Europe. That recovery is now at risk. Labour talks about growth, but businesses are already groaning at the proposed increase in regulation that the Government are proposing and are fearful of the tax rises that we are all expecting from the Chancellor and that she is effectively rolling the carpet for this autumn.

The changes in workplace regulations will not protect new employees; they will simply put businesses off hiring them. The trouble with Labour’s plans is that we know that however well-meaning they are, they always lead to the same outcome. While Conservatives see industry as the source of our prosperity, Labour just views it as something to be taxed. It thinks that entrepreneurs are not grafters but greedy, and it cannot see that drive and energy bring opportunity to a whole community, not just to an individual or a company.

To that, I say this. Just as our security should not be taken for granted, neither should our wealth or prosperity. No one owes us a living or a good life. If we punish those who create jobs and make it harder or more expensive to run a business, this country will get poorer. It will not happen overnight; it will creep up on us, with investments not made, business ideas not taken forward and entrepreneurs moved abroad. Little by little, those good intentions will lead to well-predicted consequences. Where we should be going for growth, Labour is designing a state of stagnation.

The direction that the Government have chosen to take is all too clear: a state that is weak on defence, weak on protecting our borders and weak on maintaining order, whether in schools or on the streets. Yet, that state presumes to tell us how to live our lives, offering us less choice about how we educate our children, run our businesses, rent our homes and do our jobs. In only a few weeks, the Government have already shown themselves unable to commit to the steps needed to keep us safe, unable to secure our borders and unwilling to let the British economy thrive.

The Labour party talks a good game, but actions speak louder than words, and its actions so far have been those of a party determined to put ideology over this country’s interests.